Iranian envoy: CIA involved in Neda Agha-Soltan 's shooting?

Herblay FRANCE
bonsoir ,
picked up the article below from CNN. George Little from the CIA does not know that we here at 911 blogger are very well informed of the CIA's track record and know what the CIA is capable ( Iran 1953 , etc ! )
and we can be surprised that he is offensed.
"in response, CIA spokesman George Little said, "Any suggestion that the CIA was responsible for the death of this young woman is wrong, absurd and offensive." "
Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, was shot to death in Tehran on Saturday.

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) -- The United States may have been behind the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan, the 26-year-old Iranian woman whose fatal videotaped shooting Saturday made her a symbol of opposition to the June 12 presidential election results, the country's ambassador to Mexico said Thursday.
Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, was shot to death in Tehran on Saturday.
"This death of Neda is very suspicious," Ambassador Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri said. "My question is, how is it that this Miss Neda is shot from behind, got shot in front of several cameras, and is shot in an area where no significant demonstration was behind held?"
He suggested that the CIA or another intelligence service may have been responsible.
"Well, if the CIA wants to kill some people and attribute that to the government elements, then choosing women is an appropriate choice, because the death of a woman draws more sympathy," Ghadiri said.
In response, CIA spokesman George Little said, "Any suggestion that the CIA was responsible for the death of this young woman is wrong, absurd and offensive."
Though the video appeared to show that she had been shot in the chest, Ghadiri said that the bullet was found in her head and that it was not of a type used in Iran.
"These are the methods that terrorists, the CIA and spy agencies employ," he said. "Naturally, they would like to see blood spilled in these demonstrations, so that they can use it against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is of the common methods that the CIA employs in various countries."
But, he added, "I am not saying that now the CIA has done this. There are different groups. It could be the [work of another] intelligence service; it could be the CIA; it could be the terrorists. Anyway, there are people who employ these types of methods."
Asked about his government's imposition of restrictions on reporting by international journalists, Ghadiri blamed the reporters themselves.
"Some of the reporters and mass media do not reflect the truth," he said.
For example, he said, international news organizations have lavished coverage on demonstrations by supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi, whom the government has said lost to the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by a landslide.
But those same news organizations have not shown "many, many demonstrations in favor of the winner," he said.
Further, he said, members of the international news media have failed to report on people setting banks and buses afire or attacking other people. "The only things they show are the reactions of the police," he said.
Because of restrictions on reporting in Iran, CNN has been unable to confirm many of the reports and claims relating to protests.
Ghadiri said it is only fair that security forces protect the lives and property of the Iranian people.
"If in America supporters of Mr. McCain had gotten out on the street and tried to burn the banks during the last election, do you think the police would just sit idly by and be a spectator?" he asked, referring to the GOP presidential candidate who lost the presidential vote in November to Barack Obama.
Ghadiri called on backers of Moussavi to "accept the majority's victory."
Ahmadinejad's overwhelming victory was no surprise, Ghadiri said, noting that a poll published in the United States three weeks before the June 12 elections showed Ahmadinejad with a commanding lead. "Why don't you show that?" he asked.
Ghadiri also addressed questions about the rapid reporting of the election results, which the opposition has cited as evidence that the ballots were not properly counted.
"It wasn't said that only four people counted the 40 million votes," he said. "There were tens of thousands of people in Iran who counted these votes. They declared that this is very simple."

A kinder, gentler CIA. Oh really?

The CIA caused the deaths of 300 Iranians when they deposed the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister in 1953 in order to install a fascist, US puppet, dictator. A few more innocent Iranian deaths today would probably just be chalked up to the cost of doing business.

When the coup scenario finally began, huge demonstrations proceeded in the streets of Tehran, funded by CIA and MI6 money, $1 million dollars of which was in a safe in the US embassy (57) and £1.5 million which had been delivered by Britain to its agents in Iran, according to the MI6 officer responsible for delivering it. (58)

According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, 'that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.' (59) One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs as supporters of the Communist Party - Tudeh - in order to provide a suitable pretext for the coup and the assumption of control by the Shah. Cottam observes that agents working on behalf of the British 'saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests'. (60) 'The purpose', Brian Lapping explains, 'was to frighten the majority of Iranians into believing that a victory for Mussadeq would be a victory for the Tudeh, the Soviet Union and irreligion'. (61)

The head of the CIA operation also sent envoys to the commanders of some provincial armies, encouraging them to move on to Tehran. (62) In the fighting in the capital, 300 people were killed before Musaddiq's supporters were defeated by the Shah's forces. A US general later testified that 'the guns they had in their hands, the trucks they rode in, the armoured cars that they drove through the streets, and the radio communications that permitted their control, were all furnished through the [US] military defence assistance program'. (63)

I don't know, folks.

I'm VERY skeptical of CIA involvement in the death of this woman, at least at the moment. Of course if something credible besides speculation comes along to convince me otherwise, I'll display an open mind. To me, this assassination simply looks to me like a standard tug of war between dictatorship and people power. Just because we in the 9/11 truth movement realize that the true cancer is the U.S. -based NWO, doesn't mean that Iran's government is benevolent. Real life proves to be much more complicated than "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Yes, I realize that U.S. interests favored the other guy of winning the election.

I'm sure Ahmedinejad has his supporters and detractors, and my guess is that the majority in that country were against him just as a majority in the U.S. ended up despising Bush in the end.

I simply think that the brute force used to quell these protests is something which would have happened here in 2000 and 2004 if the populace had actually cared and gotten into the streets by the thousands.

If the John Kerry supporters had displayed the fire of the Iranian people the past couple weeks, I have no doubt the U.S. riot police would do the same shit to us as the Iranian powers that be have perpetrated on their own civilian population. Fortunately for the U.S. powers that be, the American people couldn't be more apathetic. Remember "Don't tase me bro!" ? The guy was merely asking John Kerry tough questions about why he conceded the obviously fraudulent election, and if you look at the youtube comments on the video of that incident, many millions in this country actually think the guy deserved to be tased, saying he was engaging in "douchebaggery."

I don't agree

"Yes, I realize that U.S. interests favored the other guy of winning the election."

While the US claims to favor the other, I think that the PTB got exactly what they wanted. Exactly what they needed. And they helped make it so.

They didn't support either candidate...

They foment instability and chaos. Then they can escalate from diplomacy to sanctions and ultimately war. The prize is control of Iran's vast energy reserves and more control of the energy markets. This is not about religion, freedom or human rights. It is about money and power. I think the CIA was directly involved.

Well, you may likely be right.

What I have a hard time wrapping my head around: It seems there are thousands upon thousands of protesters, all around the country. This may seem like a dumb question, but how could so many people be part of a CIA staged setup?

Don't get me wrong, I can totally see the motive for wanting instability and chaos in the region. I know about the staged riots to help remove Mossadeq. I know that the toppling of Saddam's statue was staged. But that involved a closed-off area and involved no more than a few dozen people.

They are not all part of a CIA operation.

The CIA, through proxies, precipitates the actions of a select few who have influence over others. They stage the first protests. They get the ball rolling and make sure that the media coverage sells their false pretense. (Election is rigged, Mousavi actually won.)(propaganda)(using Twitter etc.) They also stage false flag events, like the shooting of this girl, to incite more participation in the protests. Sound familiar? Western mainstream media consumers are then emotionally motivated to get behind an escalation of US intervention. (operation mockingbird)

The CIA practices an extreme form of what Bernays euphemistically named public relations. (manufacturing consent/dissent)

A Canadian skeptic.

Yaya Canada comments:

Obama is "deeply concerned" about the Iranian election (he's also "deeply concerned" about N. Korea. Cannon, therefore by definition, is also "deeply concerned".

Funny thing, though - Obama in the video looks like a pussycat with a tummy full of canary, barely hiding his satisfaction at how well the US backing of Mousavi has played out in terms of the civil unrest required to expedite America's favourite pastime - regime change.

Have you noticed that an unusual number of fantastically pretty young women are meeting strange fates in countries on which the US is spying? First the "journalist" Saberi - a former Miss Dakota - arrested in Iran and ultimately dispatched back home to the US, then the two "journalists" caught sneaking into N. Korea.

And now, of course, we have the flawless martyr "Neda." The Times tells an interesting story. She wasn't with her father, as other news items have said, and she wasn't holding a freedom sign. She was with her music teacher and having got stuck in traffic on the way to the main protest site, got out of the car to get some air and was summarily shot.

Not by a police officer, but by a plainclothesman. Then along comes an anonymous driver who offers to take her to hospital but instead drives into a cul de sac, reportedly causing a delay long enough to prevent her getting timely treatment.

Hmmm... weren't we told we saw her die in the video? The Vancouver Sun's headline could be spilling the beans about that blurry, choppy video - Neda' death video puts pressure on Iran.

Dr. gives conflicting accounts of Neda's death

Version 1

shot by a basij member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house.

Version 2

shot by an armed man on a motorcycle.



We'll have to keep tabs on this one. I'm gonna set my gmail account up to receive Google News alerts on this woman.